Modern Film Scores Are Terrible

[Datameister 2,044]

Tame and refined?

They were writing in a language, yes, but no more so than John Williams writes in a language. Composers have always been trying to push the boundaries. John Dunstaple and Leonel Power's "English countenance" made music more pretty and sonorous than ever before. Josquin Des Prez was said to have written the first truly emotional music. Claudio Monteverdi's "seconda prattica" was an attempt to throw out the rules in favor of telling stories and conveying feelings through music. Bach's sons explored emotional extremes with "Sturm und Drang" music. The Romantics greatly expanded the tonal language in ever increasing pursuits of profound emotions. The Impressionists took music to abstract, mysterious places.

But every time, it's really the same story. Revolutionary composers pushing the limits of what's acceptable. These people were crazy. They fought, they had affairs, they lost fortunes and died in poverty, and they lived through wars, famines and plagues - or met their ends. One Renaissance madrigal composer murdered his wife and her lover, and maybe their love child too. Schumann died in an insane asylum. I don't really know where the stereotype of stodgy court musicians in wigs sipping tea and playing fluttery harpsichord music comes from. Yeah, to be sure, some of them did just that, but it's a very narrow social stereotype that utterly fails to encompass the history of Western music. You don't have to listen to some violin sonata and be overcome with emotion. That's subjective. Just understand that there's a very good chance somebody put the utmost passion into its composition and performance.

And carefully organized? Hell yes it is. What's music worth if you just screw around? The best jazz improvisations can be transcribed and analyzed like compositions. I've heard it said that you shouldn't even attempt to solo over a tune in public until you've practiced it a hundred different ways. John Williams' music, I'm sure you'd agree, is VERY carefully organized, and when it's not, well, you're probably looking at some of his weaker music (certain prequel action cues, for example). While it may seem more diverse and imaginative, it's only because Williams has climbed the shoulders of everyone who came before.

Again, nobody says you have to like the stuff. I'm just suggesting different ways to think about it.

Certainly. This is all very subjective, not to mention very relative, and I don't meant to pass judgments on the validity of the music or anything. I'm just saying that for whatever reason, film scores embody all the happy mediums I like in music. Or at least, my favorites do. Classical music tends to convey emotions that don't sound "sincere" to my ear, and the explicit, often formulaic structure tends to actually get in the way of my enjoyment, no matter how meticulously well-crafted it is. For me, classical music is generally a lot more abstract, a lot less tied to the rhythms and emotions of real life. I love the organic nature of film scoring - you're right that there's a whole lot of organizational craft that goes into it, but the end result tends to flow more freely between different musical ideas, traversing a lot of different musical territory and taking on a veritable plot arc that mirrors what's going on in the film. Even if I've never seen the film, I can feel it. That's something that inexplicably appeals to me, and it's a lot less common in music that's not written for films...for obvious reasons.

[Henry B 50]

No one is saying that all classical (synonym for traditional western) music is tame and refined, Henry. But that is a characteristic that is typical of classical music from the classical period, and even into romantic. You simply don't get out of the box takes and performances out of the orchestra until much later.

If Data had said, "Every single piece of music before 1900 is a boring waste of time," I would have been asking how his account got hacked. He's much too smart a guy for that - but he did undeniably make a generalization. I feel it's my right, if not duty, to fire back a little!

The true Classical period (1725-1800 or whatever) is indeed one of the tamest periods in music, but context can change everything. I think there was as much an undercurrent of indulgence as there was conservatism. Composers put minor keys on the back burner because they were addicted to the sound of sweet, tonal music. And there was also frustration. Mozart got bored with the constant major key symphonies he was made to write. But you only need to listen to the Requiem to know how ridiculously capable he was. Or the

. Jeez! And out of the box takes and performances from the orchestra? I guess I'm not sure what you mean. The Classical period IS the orchestra. I don't think composers could really have asked for extended technique before they'd even defined what they were working with. A Haydn symphony may sound pretty small by today's standards, but in its time it was unprecedented in its diversity of color and expression (there were larger ensembles known to exist before the Classical orchestra, but you could call them the equivalent of today's 500-piece marching bands - strength in numbers only).

Certainly. This is all very subjective, not to mention very relative, and I don't meant to pass judgments on the validity of the music or anything. I'm just saying that for whatever reason, film scores embody all the happy mediums I like in music. Or at least, my favorites do. Classical music tends to convey emotions that don't sound "sincere" to my ear, and the explicit, often formulaic structure tends to actually get in the way of my enjoyment, no matter how meticulously well-crafted it is. For me, classical music is generally a lot more abstract, a lot less tied to the rhythms and emotions of real life. I love the organic nature of film scoring - you're right that there's a whole lot of organizational craft that goes into it, but the end result tends to flow more freely between different musical ideas, traversing a lot of different musical territory and taking on a veritable plot arc that mirrors what's going on in the film. Even if I've never seen the film, I can feel it. That's something that inexplicably appeals to me, and it's a lot less common in music that's not written for films...for obvious reasons.

I would agree that chamber and symphonic music of old is abstract and less related to the rhythms and emotions of real life, but take a look at opera and art song. The tonal language is much the same, and yet ostensibly it means to convey real, human emotions. If you can place yourself in that world and feel what those composers felt, instrumental music will suddenly seem a lot more interesting. The forms were undeniably more rigid than film scores (that is, no required forms whatsoever), but there's hardly a noteworthy composer that didn't invent his own form, or change an existing one. There were lines it would be inconceivable to cross. There still are today! For John Williams, anyway. The guy who wrote

once talked to my composition seminar about how he wanted to really get into the representation of real life. Well, um, that's what happened...

Anyway, you really don't have to like it all. I don't like it all. It's hard. When I started seriously studying "classical" music, I had a reaction against film scores and didn't listen to any for a while. I've been slowly warming up to them again since. But all I mean to do is spread the love. Through awareness. I mean, John Williams' "Gloria" (from Monsignor) is nice, but have you heard Guillaume de Machaut's? Nothing but by the numbers, 14th century counterpoint over the same "Gloria in excelsis deo" text that's been around for 2000 years, preserved in barely legible manuscripts without the slightest indication of dynamics, articulation or expression of any kind. And the result?

[Datameister 2,044]

If Data had said, "Every single piece of music before 1900 is a boring waste of time," I would have been asking how his account got hacked.

Well, every single one is!

No, but seriously, I understand and appreciate what you're saying. And don't get me wrong, I've grown to enjoy earlier orchestral music more and more in recent years. It's a process that I hope will continue. My original point was that if you construct a sort of spectrum with Bach at one end and Zimmer at the other, Williams falls in the middle in a way I really like. It's a very, very crude and simplified representation of the reality of the situation, but I saw some merit in Blume describing it a little bit like that.

[Henry B 50]

That makes sense - formal on one end, casual on the other. You don't want your music to be too pretentious, but you do want it to have a little class. But then, why are the composers Zimmer admires most Haydn and Mozart?

[Datameister 2,044]

Well, that's the interesting thing. Maybe this spectrum is actually more of a rainbow, so if the sun is low enough, you can see how it starts to wrap back around towards itself.

[Henry B 50]

It's all beginning to make sense...

[Datameister 2,044]

Double rainbow all the way...

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

If Data had said, "Every single piece of music before 1900 is a boring waste of time," I would have been asking how his account got hacked.

Well, every single one is!

No, but seriously, I understand and appreciate what you're saying. And don't get me wrong, I've grown to enjoy earlier orchestral music more and more in recent years. It's a process that I hope will continue. My original point was that if you construct a sort of spectrum with Bach at one end and Zimmer at the other, Williams falls in the middle in a way I really like.

I don't know if I buy that. The "Bach to Berg" narrative made much more sense to me, if we're talking about an evolution of a musical language. Actually, you argue that once you dial out all of the pounding percussion and Zebra 2 beats from Zimmer's work, you'd find an idiom way, way more conservative (and in many ways retrogressive) than William's. Even more so than Hayden, Pergolesi, Gluck, Handel, Bach and co, who while worked within the classical framkework, cleverly subverted it at the same time.

Remove the icing from Zimmer's scores, and you'll find a stale, mouldy cake.

But then, why are the composers Zimmer admires most Haydn and Mozart?

'Cause he doesn't know much about the others.

[Datameister 2,044]

I see what you're saying. The analogy isn't perfect, since Zimmer and friends did regress more'n a bit in terms of harmonic language and whatnot. I suppose it's more about the types of emotions being evoked, and the degree of similarity to modern pop music.

[Faleel 5,359]

RCP scores sound much more interesting without the electronics and stuff

[Datameister 2,044]

Well...I think it's definitely interesting to hear the raw recording sessions (through DVD rear channel rips, bonus features, etc.), but I don't think the music is really improved by stripping away those elements. The music is written with those elements in mind and relies on them for strength. Take them away, and you end up with something that (ironically) sounds very, very weak.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

The shit music goes hand-in-hand with the shit films - "The public wants what the public gets..."

[Kevin 22]

Today's films are missing those wonderful set pieces because many composers haven't really been adequately trained in composition; they haven't studied enough.

Nonsense.

Musical education is at an all time high. Even such prestigious schools as Juilliard are admitting more people than ever before. Couple that with the fact that in 1980 there were less than 200 movies released, whereareas 2011 is going to pump out 600. Of course there will be more boring music.

The simple truth is there isn't enough talent to keep up with triple volume of films. Products can be tripled in volume. The number of talented people cannot.

Excellent post.

[Thor 7,519]

"Modern film music" is such a ridiculous, sweeping term anyway that it has no meaning. Even if you specified it only to Hollywood films and scores, there are so many different styles and modes of expression, that you'd need to be far more specific if the criticism was to have any value at all. A criticism of Remote Control/contemporary action films would at the very least have some sense of meaning behind it. A specific target (even though I would probably disagree with, as I dislike much of that stuff too).

I think we're living in a Golden Age of film music, where there are so many different expressions all at once -- from the classical tradition to more popular music-oriented scores and everything inbetween. So much to choose from and so much brilliance, it's difficult to know where to start.

[Ollie 1,059]

Well...I think it's definitely interesting to hear the raw recording sessions (through DVD rear channel rips, bonus features, etc.), but I don't think the music is really improved by stripping away those elements. The music is written with those elements in mind and relies on them for strength. Take them away, and you end up with something that (ironically) sounds very, very weak.

Well some of it is.

I remember actually buying a Trevor Rabin CD because I saw a doc on a movie he scored and it had a segment that featured the recording sessions. Imagine my surprise when I bought the CD and it was layered with all that electronic crap that totally buried and ruined some decent music.

[Jay 37,373]

Which Rabin score was that?

[Ollie 1,059]

I think it was Deep Blue Sea.

[crocodile 8,018]

You mean this wondrous score with Chronicles of Narnia/Stardust/Children of Dune/Shrek theme?

Karol

[Ollie 1,059]

They weren't playing that music at the sessions. But what ended up on the CD went from pure orchestral music to sounding like someone pounding on a keyboard with a sledgehammer.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I think we're living in a Golden Age of film music, where there are so many different expressions all at once -- from the classical tradition to more popular music-oriented scores and everything inbetween.

That's another "ridiculous sweeping" statement. The only difference is that it's from an unwavering optimist.

Thor, can name me a bunch of modern film composers who can write effectively in a modernist/post-modernist classical idiom? Aside from Davis, Goldenthal, and Greenwood - are there any others?

[Thor 7,519]

I think we're living in a Golden Age of film music, where there are so many different expressions all at once -- from the classical tradition to more popular music-oriented scores and everything inbetween.

That's another "ridiculous sweeping" statement. The only difference is that it's from an unwavering optimist.

No, not really. If I'd said "all film music nowadays is brilliant!", it would have been. But I'm not. I'm saying there are a bunch of different expressions and styles out there, which is a FACT, not an opinion. It's not a value judgement (except maybe in the sense that there's lot of versatility). I'm not sure that all films call for a 'modernist/post-modernist classical idiom' (whatever you put into that), but if a film calls for that approach, there are certainly composers you can go to for that. In fact, I'm fairly confident that such techniques are part of a musical education for those who choose that path. Heck, there are composers even withOUT such education that would be able to do it based on sheer experience and skill, like Elfman.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I'm saying there are a bunch of different expressions and styles out there, which is a FACT, not an opinion.

Everyone knows that! What I was contesting, was you saying "there's more variety now than there's ever been." To me, that just seems unfounded.

I'm not sure that all films call for a 'modernist/post-modernist classical idiom' (whatever you put into that), but if a film calls for that approach, there are certainly composers you can go to for that. In fact, I'm fairly confident that such techniques are part of a musical education for those who choose that path.

What I'm saying, is that very few young film composers seem to have that kind of education. They're schooled as film composers, not simply composers or pianists, who'll later devote most of their life to film - if you know what I mean. So when they're asked to score a film that might require a "modernist/post-modernist" sound - they're handicapped, compared to someone who'd have a contemporary concert training, background or experience.

I'm definitely not saying all scores require that approach, but many can work well with it.

Heck, there are composers even withOUT such education that would be able to do it based on sheer experience and skill, like Elfman.

Sort of, but Elfman's ventures into the avant-garde feel much more half-arsed than those of Goldenthal, Williams, Davis etc...

[Thor 7,519]

Everyone knows that! What I was contesting, was you saying "there's more variety now than there's ever been." To me, that just seems unfounded.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that evaluation. I think it would be fairly easy to go through the films of, say, last year, and just register -- one by one -- the extreme variety in styles, expressions and approaches. Heck, just look at the Oscar noms. You've got it right there.

What I'm saying, is that very few young film composers seem to have that kind of education. They're schooled as film composers, not simply composers or pianists, who'll later devote most of their life to film - if you know what I mean. So when they're asked to score a film that might require a "modernist/post-modernist" sound - they're handicapped, compared to someone who'd have a contemporary concert training, background or experience.

I'm not totally up-to-date on what the curriculums are in music schools or film music programs, but I'm fairly certain that the type of sound you're looking for is at least part of what they have to study and perhaps even try their hands on. Other composers have taught themselves this on their own. Lastly, I don't think it's a prerogative to necessarily be schooled in that particular style. For example, it would be quite silly to criticize Gustavo Santaolalla for not being schooled in modernist symphonic techniques. That's not what he's about, and that's not why people hire him to score their films. Yet his scores are absolutely perfect for the films he's doing.

My attitude is this: I evaluate scores on a case-by-case basis, and the first question to ask is how the score resonates with what the film wants to communicate. If I want to point out certain "trends" in order to generalize a bit more, I'll be very specific about it. Let's say charting the influence of John Powell's "Bourne riff" in mainstream action films of the 2000's. Stuff like that. That is, IMO, the only way to keep such debates fruitful so that they don't deteriorate into meaningless generalizations.

It's fine if you like avantgarde, modernistic techniques, but to use that as a template for the evaluation of "modern film music" is a bit limited, IMO. It's like saying film music sucks because there aren't more jazz scores.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I'm not totally up-to-date on what the curriculums are in music schools or film music programs, but I'm fairly certain that the type of sound you're looking for is at least part of what they have to study and perhaps even try their hands on.

I know, it's part of a sort of pick-and-mix approach, but it's not very informing either. You only get a rudimentary understanding of the music.

Other composers have taught themselves this on their own.

If you're not going to study composition at college, this is probably the best alternative. As long as one is disciplined, and studies a good range of modern scores - you're on the right track.

Lastly, I don't think it's a prerogative to necessarily be schooled in that particular style. For example, it would be quite silly to criticize Gustavo Santaolalla for not being schooled in modernist symphonic techniques. That's not what he's about, and that's not why people hire him to score their films. Yet his scores are absolutely perfect for the films he's doing.

I get that. But if we want "the next" Williams or Goldsmith, they'll have to be eclectic - and know a wide range of styles to draw upon when needed. They can't just be one-note.

My attitude is this: I evaluate scores on a case-by-case basis, and the first question to ask is how the score resonates with what the film wants to communicate.

That's a basic requirement, but far from the only one. Too many scores today meet that, but fail to gain a life outside of the film. In that sense, they do their job, but not much more.

There's also the issue of abandoning once principles, in giving thumbs up for any score that fits its film. It also rejects the possibility of deliberate counterpoint of ideas - a film saying one thing, and the music, another.

If I want to point out certain "trends" in order to generalize a bit more, I'll be very specific about it. Let's say charting the influence of John Powell's "Bourne riff" in mainstream action films of the 2000's. Stuff like that. That is, IMO, the only way to keep such debates fruitful so that they don't deteriorate into meaningless generalizations.

But even then, it's easy to swing the other way, and miss the bigger picture. Not seeing the wood from the trees.

It's fine if you like avantgarde, modernistic techniques, but to use that as a template for the evaluation of "modern film music" is a bit limited, IMO. It's like saying film music sucks because there aren't more jazz scores.

Well, I'm merely using it to barometer a conservatism in most contemporary film scores. Not that all scores today sound alike, but there seems to be less room for innovation, and conquering 'uncharted territory.'

Just looking at the nominees last year:

How to Train Your Dragon – John Powell

Inception – Hans Zimmer

The King's Speech – Alexandre Desplat

127 Hours – A.R. Rahman

The Social Network – Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

That's not homogenous, but ain't exactly diverse or groundbreaking, either. All of these tropes of film music been done before, and more compellingly too.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You mean this wondrous score with Chronicles of Narnia/Stardust/Children of Dune/Shrek theme?

Karol

That theme is in Stardust?

Deep Blue Sea is a great score. If you don't want electronic Rabin, simply steer clear of his action scores, and focus on The Great Raid, The Guardian, and Flyboys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PdqnjkGdu4

[Thor 7,519]

I get that. But if we want "the next" Williams or Goldsmith, they'll have to be eclectic - and know a wide range of styles to draw upon when needed. They can't just be one-note.

I agree that diversity is a good skill to have as a film composer, and it is my view that most fulltime composers working today (among the A list in Hollywood) are exactly that. That being said, not ALL film composers should strive for extreme diversity, like John Powell. Some are more content on specializing in a given soundscape, and then the filmmaker would go to you for that. You hire Daft Punk and Trent Reznor for their variants of electronic sound, not because they're diverse.

That's a basic requirement, but far from the only one. Too many scores today meet that, but fail to gain a life outside of the film. In that sense, they do their job, but not much more.

Well, film scores should serve the film first and if they work alone outside the film, it's a bonus (they often work better if you re-arrange it, but that's a whole other discussion). So it was quite amazing that so many scores last year, for example, worked wonderfully as "pure music" too.

It also rejects the possibility of deliberate counterpoint of ideas - a film saying one thing, and the music, another.

No, that's also part of having a score that resonates with what the film wants to communicate. Counterpoint can be one such purpose. In this context, however, I was more talking about STYLE, which seemed to be your approach.

Well, I'm merely using it to barometer a conservatism in most contemporary film scores. Not that all scores today sound alike, but there seems to be less room for innovation, and conquering 'uncharted territory.'

Just looking at the nominees last year:

How to Train Your Dragon – John Powell

Inception – Hans Zimmer

The King's Speech – Alexandre Desplat

127 Hours – A.R. Rahman

The Social Network – Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

That's not homogenous, but ain't exactly diverse or groundbreaking, either. All of these tropes of film music been done before, and more compellingly too.

Well, first of all, it shows the diversity we were talking about, as you yourself point out.

Second, I think it's a great mix of more or less "uncharted territory" (INCEPTION, 127 HOURS, SOCIAL NETWORK) and more classical modes of composition (HTTYD, THE KING'S SPEECH). As it should be. Not every single score can be brand new, original, avantgarde. That would be awfully boring.

[crocodile 8,018]

You mean this wondrous score with Chronicles of Narnia/Stardust/Children of Dune/Shrek theme?

Karol

That theme is in Stardust?

Yes, kind of.

I don't know if you remember, but one of the FSM podcast touched on this subject. Pity the site is offline now.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah I remember that podcast. At the time I thought it was just a Media Ventures thing. Wonder who's the original composer.

[Romão 2,274]

I don't think the average quality of a film score has changed much over the years. The highlights, however, are much more dismal in recent years than before. And as with every art form, I don't care for average quality. I care for the highlights, the cream of the crop.

There isn't a supremely talented composer working mainly in Hollywood nowadays.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I get that. But if we want "the next" Williams or Goldsmith, they'll have to be eclectic - and know a wide range of styles to draw upon when needed. They can't just be one-note.

I agree that diversity is a good skill to have as a film composer, and it is my view that most fulltime composers working today (among the A list in Hollywood) are exactly that.

They're jacks of all trades, masters of none. Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams at least managed to perfect their different trades, rivaling and bettering most who specialized in those soundworlds .

Some are more content on specializing in a given soundscape, and then the filmmaker would go to you for that. You hire Daft Punk and Trent Reznor for their variants of electronic sound, not because they're diverse.

Sure, we can at least agree here.

That's a basic requirement, but far from the only one. Too many scores today meet that, but fail to gain a life outside of the film. In that sense, they do their job, but not much more.

Well, film scores should serve the film first and if they work alone outside the film, it's a bonus (they often work better if you re-arrange it, but that's a whole other discussion). So it was quite amazing that so many scores last year, for example, worked wonderfully as "pure music" too.

Like LEGEND OF THE GUARDIANS: THE OWLS OF G'AHOOLE, by David Hirschfelder. Doing circles around the so called 'A list' (which would have been a C list a decade or two ago) of modern film music. Bringing back a long lost style of adventure scoring to a mainstream animation film.

It also rejects the possibility of deliberate counterpoint of ideas - a film saying one thing, and the music, another.

No, that's also part of having a score that resonates with what the film wants to communicate. Counterpoint can be one such purpose. In this context, however, I was more talking about STYLE, which seemed to be your approach.

I was talking about FIT FOR PURPOSE, which seems to be your approach. Commodifying art.

Well, I'm merely using it to barometer a conservatism in most contemporary film scores. Not that all scores today sound alike, but there seems to be less room for innovation, and conquering 'uncharted territory.'

Just looking at the nominees last year:

How to Train Your Dragon – John Powell

Inception – Hans Zimmer

The King's Speech – Alexandre Desplat

127 Hours – A.R. Rahman

The Social Network – Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

That's not homogenous, but ain't exactly diverse or groundbreaking, either. All of these tropes of film music been done before, and more compellingly too.

Well, first of all, it shows the diversity we were talking about, as you yourself point out.

It's diversity, but it's hardly "extreme."

Second, I think it's a great mix of more or less "uncharted territory" (INCEPTION, 127 HOURS, SOCIAL NETWORK) and more classical modes of composition (HTTYD, THE KING'S SPEECH). As it should be. Not every single score can be brand new, original, avantgarde.

But not a single one of them are. INCEPTION, 127 HOURS and SOCIAL NETWORK are all branching out of a pop tradition - whether prog-rock, dark ambiance, post-industrial, world music, or post-rock. And likewise, HTTYD treads familiar territory that James Horner and Howard Shore did before with their treatment of Celtic folk music, with yet more pop-minimalism - Forbidden Friendship wouldn't sound out of place in TITANIC. The action cues aren't much better either, containing the cliched 00s sound of guitar power chords, taiko drums, and stock tone clusters, snap pizz and glissandi for horror, that James Newton-Howard and co. have already done to death.

Strangely though, THE KING'S SPEECH feels more fresh and less cynical than the others, even if it's retreading the past.

[mahler3 478]

I don't know if you remember, but one of the FSM podcast touched on this subject. Pity the site is offline now.

Karol

Here you are:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/film-score-monthly-podcast/id92147842

[Henry B 50]

Williams and Goldsmith were not jacks of all trades.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Williams and Goldsmith were not jacks of all trades.

They were masters of most.

[Henry B 50]

Sorry, but it's pretty ridiculous to assume that Williams or Goldsmith could have written the right score for any film. As versatile as they are/were (Goldsmith especially), they still only represent, in my mind, a small fraction of the scoring possibilities out there. To say that they were capable of everything is an insult to other film composers.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Sorry, but it's pretty ridiculous to assume that Williams or Goldsmith could have written the right score for any film.

Almost, but they could. They were self-honed chameleon composers, who could adapt adopt various styles to fit a large number of genres over the years.

Don't get me wrong. They didn't represent every possibility of film music, but relatively speaking, they mastered more musical idioms than any other film composers of the 20th or 21st century. There's no one else who's come close, before or since.

[Henry B 50]

Right, but just because they were the most versatile doesn't mean they could do every style. They're way more varied than Philip Glass, whose music you could identify within about five seconds of listening. But could Williams or Goldsmith have written a Philip Glass score as well as Philip Glass? Nope! And maybe Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross just do this electronic stuff, but I'd like to see Williams deliver the next Social Network. To me, it sounds like you're just saying that you prefer the music of Williams and Goldsmith, and that because it's your preferred style, the others are not worth listening to.

[Thor 7,519]

They're jacks of all trades, masters of none. Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams at least managed to perfect their different trades, rivaling and bettering most who specialized in those soundworlds .

Well, they certainly have/had their limitations too, esp. in relation to electronic music. They weren't exactly wizards of trance, folk rock or heavy metal either. Versatility is good and will get you far, but it's not the be-all, end-all qualification for being a good film composer. It always depends.

But not a single one of them are. INCEPTION, 127 HOURS and SOCIAL NETWORK are all branching out of a pop tradition - whether prog-rock, dark ambiance, post-industrial, world music, or post-rock. And likewise, HTTYD treads familiar territory that James Horner and Howard Shore did before with their treatment of Celtic folk music, with yet more pop-minimalism - Forbidden Friendship wouldn't sound out of place in TITANIC. The action cues aren't much better either, containing the cliched 00s sound of guitar power chords, taiko drums, and stock tone clusters, snap pizz and glissandi for horror, that James Newton-Howard and co. have already done to death.

Strangely though, THE KING'S SPEECH feels more fresh and less cynical than the others, even if it's retreading the past.

Again, I find it a bit curious to evaluate film music as if it were socalled "pure music". Film music is 'applied music', and can be innovative in usage, for example, but it doesn't always have to be groundbreaking modernist music like you find in the concert hall. The deep, dark chords of INCEPTION added a special ambiance and three-dimensionality to that film that I've rarely heard before. It was one of the most important ingredients that MADE that film. Sure, the style isn't particularly groundbreaking (there are similar elements in Vangelis' work, for example), but the usage was; the presence; the way it made certain scenes iconic. 127 HOURS wasn't groundbreaking either, but brilliant in the seamless integration with the pop songs and the almost dreamlike, melancholic textures -- esp. the rain sequence. And SOCIAL NETWORK's gritty electronica underlined the electronic aspect of the story, and was wonderfully discrete in a film that was very dialogue-heavy. HTTYD certainly did NOT require anything groundbreaking, as it's a straightforward family film which is meant to carry its heart on its sleeve.

So again....to me, the first question to ask re: a score's success is how it works in the movie. Johnny Greenwood's modernistic score for THERE WILL BE BLOOD was interesting and challenging, for sure, but that's also because the film called for that type of score. To me, it doesn't make any sense to demand that film music should be more in this or that style, or this or that degree of groundbreaking. It's always a case-to-case basis and what the film should have.

[Wojo 2,453]

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Right, but just because they were the most versatile doesn't mean they could do every style.

Exactly, though I've already said that, whether implied or otherwise.

They're way more varied than Philip Glass, whose music you could identify within about five seconds of listening. But could Williams or Goldsmith have written a Philip Glass score as well as Philip Glass? Nope!

Maybe. A lot of John Williams's 90s to 00s work takes a lot of inspiration from post-minimalism - i.e. John Adams in particular. Think SLEEPERS, JFK, NIXON, A.I. etc... None of them are 'Philip Glass scores', 'cause the dude's got such an individual voice. But they come close to his 'niche' as it were. A.I. alone I think, easily rivals most, and betters many of Philip Glass's own minimalist scores, in its both dramatic impact, and its own musical integrity. It works both in and outside of film.

And maybe Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross just do this electronic stuff, but I'd like to see Williams deliver the next Social Network.

I'd agree there. Williams is in the twilight years of his career, so he can hardly be expected to go down with every trend in Hollywood and pop, especially considering he's been in semi-retirement. Only coming out to do personal projects with Spielberg.

To me, it sounds like you're just saying that you prefer the music of Williams and Goldsmith, and that because it's your preferred style, the others are not worth listening to.

They are, but they're don't do much for me, that's all. They're serve their purpose in the film, remain fairly unobtrusive, add a little dramatic edge, and rack up on i-tunes. They don't move me, or draw me in. They're just there.

Well, they certainly have/had their limitations too, esp. in relation to electronic music. They weren't exactly wizards of trance, folk rock or heavy metal either. Versatility is good and will get you far, but it's not the be-all, end-all qualification for being a good film composer. It always depends.

Well yeah, I mean Elliot Goldenthal is probably too eclectic for his own good. What you'd call a polystylist, but despite his extreme versatility and 'anything goes' approach, he lacks a distinct voice. Williams and Goldsmith struck a healthy balance.

Again, I find it a bit curious to evaluate film music as if it were socalled "pure music".

The distinction in musicology is usually between "absolute music" on one hand and "program music" on the other. That's how I evaluate film music, as program music, that involves some kind of extra-musical representation. It should be judged on how well works both in the context of the film, and outside. Not strictly one or the other.

HTTYD certainly did NOT require anything groundbreaking, as it's a straightforward family film which is meant to carry its heart on its sleeve.

A film can be strongly benefit from many types of scoring, without necessarily requiring them by default. Sometimes there are more obvious choices, but we should just conform to these by rote. Otherwise we have 'cookie cutter' scoring, that doesn't seek to elevate the film, and simply give the audience what it expects, or what it's used to. Having an unorthodox score for a family film or comedy can work, if handled right. That said, it shouldn't become a norm either. Otherwise it becomes a sort of 'yes is no', 'up is down' orthodoxy.

So again....to me, the first question to ask re: a score's success is how it works in the movie. Johnny Greenwood's modernistic score for THERE WILL BE BLOOD was interesting and challenging, for sure, but that's also because the film called for that type of score. To me, it doesn't make any sense to demand that film music should be more in that or that style, or this and that groundbreaking. It's always a case-to-case basis and what the film should have.

I'm not sure about this. I think I lot of films since THERE WILL BE BLOOD could have easily benefited from that kind of scoring. But didn't get it, because of either a lack of composers versed in that writing, or close minded producers/execs. And not for the sake of having a modernist score, but due to the nature of the films, and ideas they're dealing with.

[Salacius 7]

.

[Henry B 50]

Hey, Salacius. What's real emotion?

[gkgyver 1,645]

A real power anthem like "Arrival On Earth" of course.

[Henry B 50]

Thanks, gkgyver, that was so helpful.

[mahler3 478]

Sorry guys, IMO new scores are horrific, devoid of any real talent, melodies and real emotion.

Michael Giacchino is the only hope for the future of film music, but even him has a looooooooooooong way to go to become a masterful composer.

Clearly that quote is ignoring talent from Europe and elsewhere. Are you referring only to Hollywood?

Christopher Gordon, Mark McKenzie, Fernando Valezquez, Nuno Malo, Bruno Coulais, Oscar Arjauvo are just some examples of talent that shines through their music.

To say all new scores are horrific (even noted as just your opinion) is kind of narrow-minded.

[crocodile 8,018]

I think the problem with modern scoring exist not because of talent/approach and such, but because filmmmakers in general have no clue what to do with music in their films. They are either scored wall-to-wall (which lessens the impact) and/or are so drowned in the sound mix that you start to wonder why they even hire the composer and musicians in the first place. The music ends up being quite redundant part of soundscape with no real purpose. Not for once have I thought that JW's score to AOTC has any effect on the film in a "silent movie" kind of way (as SW is supposed to be). It was anything but that, really. I thought that if you have music in your film then don't be shy to use it. Or just don't use it at all. Because, for the most part, loud sound effects and music in recent films cancel each other out.

On top of that scores are not supposed to be intrusive in their films, which is a very puzzling thing.

So in the end you have badly spotted, barely heard, anonymous scores. Why even bother?

(Oh and thanks for the link, mahler3 )

Karol

[Thor 7,519]

The distinction in musicology is usually between "absolute music" on one hand and "program music" on the other. That's how I evaluate film music, as program music, that involves some kind of extra-musical representation. It should be judged on how well works both in the context of the film, and outside. Not strictly one or the other.

Again, I think it's unfair to judge film music as regular, classical program music. I'm all for judging the purely musical merits of a soundtrack album, but when it comes to assessing a film SCORE, how effective it is and how successful the "film music scene" is (general as that term may be), you can only - and ONLY - do so by looking at how it responds to the film.

If you're going to generalize (which in itself is a dubious project unless you're being specific), it doesn't make sense to me to do so based on what style there is or isn't. Especially not film music, which isn't ONE type of music, but rather an umbrella category of many different musical styles that are APPLIED to a film as a tool (like cinematography, acting, sound, editing etc.), based on what type of music the film calls for. Some benefit from a solo guitar score, others from an RC-style score, others from a classical symphonic score, others from an electronic or pop-based scores and others again on more modernistic techniques. And so on and so forth.

Evaluation comes from looking at each film individually, or at best a group of films with particular common traits (like, say, the mainstream RC action/power anthem sound).

[Datameister 2,044]

Thor, I'm not sure why you're insisting on completely ignoring the film while evaluating a soundtrack album and completely ignoring anything other than function in the film when evaluating a film score, but some of us just don't approach it that way. Obviously, a film composer's job is to serve the film. But most of us became fans because of composers who weren't satisfied with just doing that.

[Henry B 50]

Let's not open that can of worms.

[Datameister 2,044]

It was already open. If the worms start crawling out, I'll walk away.

[crocodile 8,018]

Worms are underrated.

Karol